15-09-2014, 11:45 AM
David - Mickey Adams is a selector for the English team. What's more relevant: the fact that he has a conflict of interest, or the value he brings as a leading GM in terms of being able to weigh up the form of his prospective team-mates?
As for the old Quality Chess Cartel, sure, there is a potential conflict of interest if one of us is selecting. The same could be true of any selector who happens to be more friendly with one player over another. At some point you have to put some trust in people's integrity.
Alan - it's pointless comparing chess and football. Let's come back to the recent example of Tromso. Of our available GMs, Colin was the highest-rated, most experienced and most consistent performer, and would surely have been the first name on the list of any selector in their right mind (obviously allowing for the fact that Rowson was unlikely to play). Would you or anyone else dispute this?
As for the old Quality Chess Cartel, sure, there is a potential conflict of interest if one of us is selecting. The same could be true of any selector who happens to be more friendly with one player over another. At some point you have to put some trust in people's integrity.
Alan - it's pointless comparing chess and football. Let's come back to the recent example of Tromso. Of our available GMs, Colin was the highest-rated, most experienced and most consistent performer, and would surely have been the first name on the list of any selector in their right mind (obviously allowing for the fact that Rowson was unlikely to play). Would you or anyone else dispute this?